July 26, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S5449 

and we are going to cut environmental 

protection. That is deficit reduction. 

Are we going to ask millionaires and 

billionaires, who are doing phenomenally well, whose effective tax rate is 

the lowest in decades, to pay one nickel more in taxes? No, we can’t do that, 

but we can cut Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, education, and every 

program that the children, seniors, and 

working families of this country depend upon. 

Now, to add insult to injury in terms 

of this movement supported by bigmoney interests that have so much influence over what goes on here in Congress, it is important to look at the 

playing field of the American economy 

today to understand what is going on. 

Are the people on top really hurting 

and suffering? Are large corporations 

today really struggling under onerous 

corporate taxes? The answer is, obviously not. 

We don’t talk about it enough, and 

too few people even mention it, but I 

do, and I will continue. It is important 

today to understand that the United 

States has the most unequal distribution of wealth and income since the 

1920s and the most unequal distribution 

of wealth and income of any major 

country on Earth. Why is that important? It is important to know that. Before we cut Social Security, Medicare, 

Medicaid, education, and the ability of 

working-class kids to go to college, we 

have to know the condition of how people are doing today. The middle class 

today is shrinking and poverty is increasing. When we cut food stamps and 

Medicaid, we are going to hurt a whole 

lot of people, and in some cases very 

tragically. 

Just last week a member of my staff 

went to southwest Virginia, and she 

spent the day at a program in which 

thousands of people in that area were 

lining up to get dental and health care 

because they didn’t have any health insurance. There are 45,000 Americans 

who will die this year because they 

don’t have health insurance and can’t 

get to a doctor in time. There are people who say: Let’s cut Medicaid. There 

are people all over this country who 

can’t find a dentist. There are children 

who are suffering from dental decay. 

Let’s cut Medicaid. Well, I don’t think 

so. 

If we look at the country, the middle 

class is shrinking, people are hurting, 

but people on top are doing phenomenally well. Very few people talk about 

it. I am going to talk about it. In the 

last study we have seen in terms of income distribution in this country—and 

that is what happened between 2009 between and 2010—93 percent of all new 

income created over that year went to 

the top 1 percent. I will say it again. 

Ninety-three percent of all new income 

in that year went to the top 1 percent. 

The bottom 99 percent had the privilege of sharing the remaining 7 percent. Yet, when we ask the people on 

top to maybe pay a little bit more in 

taxes, oh my goodness, there are lobbyists all over Capitol Hill saying: We 

can’t afford to. We are down to our last 

$50 billion. We just can’t afford another 

nickel in taxes. We need that money 

now. Thanks to Citizens United, we can 

pump that money into political campaigns. 

One family who is worth $50 billion is 

going to put $400 million into the campaign. Another guy who is worth $20 

billion can’t pay more in taxes, but he 

does have hundreds of millions to pour 

into political campaigns. 

In terms of distribution of wealth, 

which is a different category of costs 

than distribution of income, we have 

an incredible situation. I hope people 

understand what is going on in this 

country, where one family—one family, 

the Walton family, of Wal-Mart—now 

owns more wealth at $89 billion than 

the bottom 40 percent of the American 

people. One family owns more wealth 

than the bottom 40 percent. Do we 

know what some folks want to do here? 

They want to repeal the entire estate 

tax and give that family a very substantial tax break, because owning $89 

billion is obviously not enough. They 

are struggling. We have to give them a 

tax break while we cut Social Security, 

Medicare, and Medicaid. If that makes 

any sense to the American people, I 

would be very surprised, and it does 

not make sense to the American people. 

According to a February 2011 Washington Post poll, while more than 70 

percent of Americans oppose cutting 

Social Security and Medicare, 81 percent supported a surtax on millionaires 

to reduce the deficit. My guess is if we 

go to New Hampshire, Maine, or any 

other State in America and we say to 

people, we have a deficit problem and 

the choice is between cutting Social 

Security or asking millionaires and 

billionaires to pay more in taxes, there 

is, in my view, no State in America— 

no State in this country, no matter 

how red it may be—where people will 

say: Cut Social Security and Medicare 

and Medicaid, but don’t raise taxes on 

millionaires and billionaires. I don’t 

believe that is true anyplace in America. 

Today, the top 1 percent owns 40 percent of the wealth of our Nation while 

the bottom 60 percent owns less than 2 

percent. The top 1 percent owns 40 percent; the bottom 60 percent owns less 

than 2 percent, and there are Members 

of this Senate coming to the floor and 

saying we are going to punish the bottom 60 percent and we are going to give 

more to the people on top. 

There was a study that recently 

came out that talks about the ability 

of billionaires and corporations to use 

tax havens. What we know—and I am a 

member of the Budget Committee—is 

that millionaires and billionaires and 

corporations in this country are avoiding paying about $100 billion every single year by using tax havens in the 

Cayman Islands, in Bermuda, Panama, 

and other countries. Maybe, just 

maybe, before we cut Social Security 

and Medicare, we might want to pass 

legislation to make those people start 

paying their fair share in taxes and do 

away with those tax havens. 

Let me conclude by saying we are in 

a pivotal moment in American history. 

If we as a Nation do not get our act together, in my view, we will move even 

more rapidly in the direction of an oligarchy, where we will have a few people on the top with incredible wealth 

controlling not only our economy but 

also, through Citizens United, the political life of this country. We are seeing that playing out right here on the 

floor of the Senate, with people who 

are turning their backs on working 

families and the middle class, and at a 

time when the wealthiest people are 

doing phenomenally well, fighting for 

more tax breaks for people who absolutely don’t need them. 

I hope the American people pay rapt 

attention to this debate, and I hope the 

American people get involved in this 

debate, because if they do not, mark 

my words, within 4 months, a handful 

of people, supported by corporate 

America and the big money interests, 

are going to bring down to this floor a 

deficit reduction proposal which will 

cut Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and give more tax breaks to the 

wealthiest people in this country. It 

will have virtually all Republican support. It will have some Democratic support. If we don’t aggressively oppose 

this approach, that is exactly what will 

happen. 

I yield the floor. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader. 

Mr. REID. Madam President, I appreciate my friend yielding, my dear 

friend from Vermont. 

f 

EXECUTIVE SESSION 

NOMINATION OF ROBERT E. 

BACHARACH TO BE UNITED 

STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR 

THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent 

that the Senate proceed to executive 

session to consider Calendar No. 759, 

the nomination of Robert E. 

Bacharach, of Oklahoma. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

The clerk will report the nomination. 

The assistant bill clerk read the 

nomination of Robert E. Bacharach, of 

Oklahoma, to be United States Circuit 

Judge for the Tenth Circuit. 

CLOTURE MOTION

Mr. REID. Madam President, I send a 

cloture motion to the desk with respect to this nomination. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented 

under rule XXII, the Chair directs the 

clerk to read the motion. 

The assistant bill clerk read as follows: 

CLOTURE MOTION

We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule XXII of the 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
S5450 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE July 26, 2012 

Standing Rules of the Senate, hereby move 

to bring to a close debate on the nomination 

of Robert E. Bacharach, of Oklahoma, to be 

United States Circuit Judge for the 10th Circuit. 

Harry Reid, Patrick J. Leahy, Thomas R. 

Carper, Tom Udall, Robert Menendez, 

Kirsten E. Gillibrand, Dianne Feinstein, Kent Conrad, Christopher A. 

Coons, Herb Kohl, Amy Klobuchar, 

Jack Reed, Ron Wyden, Richard J. Durbin, Jeff Merkley, Richard Blumenthal, 

Sherrod Brown. 

Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent 

that the mandatory quorum under rule 

XXII be waived. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

f 

LEGISLATIVE SESSION 

Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent 

that the Senate resume legislative session. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

f 

CYBERSECURITY ACT OF 2012— 

MOTION TO PROCEED—Continued 

Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent 

that at 3:30 p.m. today, the Senate proceed to vote on the motion to proceed— 

or what we can do, we will start the 

vote at 3:25; and if somebody is going 

to be a bit late, we will protect them 

on that. 

So I ask unanimous consent we start 

voting at 3:25 p.m. today on the motion 

to proceed to S. 3414, the cybersecurity 

bill. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. REID. Madam President, I meant 

that request to be 3:22 p.m. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. REID. All for my friend from 

Louisiana. 

CLOTURE MOTION

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant 

to rule XXII, the Chair lays before the 

Senate the pending cloture motion, 

which the clerk will state. 

The assistant bill clerk read as follows: 

CLOTURE MOTION

We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the provisions of Rule XXII of the 

Standing Rules of the Senate, hereby move 

to bring to a close debate on the motion to 

proceed to calendar No. 470, S. 3414, a bill to 

enhance the security and resiliency of the 

cyber and communications infrastructure of 

the United States. 

Harry Reid, Joseph I. Lieberman, John 

D. Rockefeller IV, Dianne Feinstein, 

Sheldon Whitehouse, Barbara A. Mikulski, Barbara Boxer, Jeff Bingaman, 

Patty Murray, Max Baucus, Charles E. 

Schumer, Bill Nelson, Christopher A. 

Coons, Tom Udall, Carl Levin, Mark R. 

Warner, Ben Nelson. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 

call has been waived. 

The question is, Is it the sense of the 

Senate that debate on the motion to 

proceed to S. 3414, a bill to enhance the 

security and resiliency of the cyber and 

communications infrastructure in the 

United States, shall be brought to a 

close? 

The yeas and nays are mandatory 

under the rule. 

The clerk will call the roll. 

The assistant legislative clerk called 

the roll. 

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the 

Senator from North Dakota (Mr. CONRAD) is necessarily absent. 

Mr. KYL. The following Senators are 

necessarily absent: the Senator from 

South Carolina (Mr. DEMINT), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. INHOFE), the 

Senator from Illinois (Mr. KIRK), and 

the Senator from Utah (Mr. LEE). 

Further, if present and voting, the 

Senator from South Carolina (Mr. 

DEMINT) would have voted ‘‘nay.’’ 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there 

any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote? 

The yeas and nays resulted—yeas 84, 

nays 11, as follows: 

[Rollcall Vote No. 185 Leg.] 

YEAS—84 

Akaka 

Alexander 

Ayotte 

Begich 

Bennet 

Bingaman 

Blumenthal 

Blunt 

Boozman 

Boxer 

Brown (MA) 

Brown (OH) 

Burr 

Cantwell 

Cardin 

Carper 

Casey 

Chambliss 

Coats 

Coburn 

Cochran 

Collins 

Coons 

Corker 

Cornyn 

Crapo 

Durbin 

Feinstein 

Franken 

Gillibrand 

Graham 

Grassley 

Hagan 

Harkin 

Hatch 

Hoeven 

Hutchison 

Inouye 

Isakson 

Johnson (SD) 

Kerry 

Klobuchar 

Kohl 

Kyl 

Landrieu 

Lautenberg 

Leahy 

Levin 

Lieberman 

Lugar 

Manchin 

McCain 

McCaskill 

McConnell 

Menendez 

Merkley 

Mikulski 

Murkowski 

Murray 

Nelson (NE) 

Nelson (FL) 

Portman 

Pryor 

Reed 

Reid 

Risch 

Rockefeller 

Sanders 

Schumer 

Sessions 

Shaheen 

Shelby 

Snowe 

Stabenow 

Thune 

Toomey 

Udall (CO) 

Udall (NM) 

Vitter 

Warner 

Webb 

Whitehouse 

Wicker 

Wyden 

NAYS—11 

Barrasso 

Baucus 

Enzi 

Heller 

Johanns 

Johnson (WI) 

Moran 

Paul 

Roberts 

Rubio 

Tester 

NOT VOTING—5 

Conrad 

DeMint 

Inhofe 

Kirk 

Lee 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this 

vote, the yeas are 84, the nays are 11. 

Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut. 

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I will yield to the 

leader. I thank him, too, for that resounding vote, which seems to me not 

that the debate is over but the debate 

is going to begin, and an overwhelming 

majority of the Members of the Senate 

want to adopt cybersecurity legislation. 

Mrs. MCCASKILL. Mr. President, I 

come to the floor today to express my 

concerns about S.3414, the Cybersecurity Act of 2012. Like many of my colleagues, I voted today to allow the Senate to fully debate and consider amendments to this bill, but I want to make 

it clear that I have some significant 

concerns about this legislation and unless improvements are made, I cannot 

support the legislation in its current 

form. 

At the outset, let me just say, I do 

firmly believe that the Congress should 

take action to address our Nation’s 

vulnerability to cyber threats. A cyber 

attack on our critical infrastructure, 

whether it be our energy grid, a regional water supply, or our financial 

markets, could significantly harm our 

economy, our national security, and 

our way of life. However, the legislation before us today still needs significant improvement before it can become 

the law of the land. 

I have heard from many in Missouri, 

including many companies operating or 

associated with the types of critical infrastructure that will be subject to the 

provisions of this legislation. They 

have raised concerns that, as currently 

structured, S. 3414 would create redundant oversight structures and add additional standards. Moreover, the bill 

may have the effect of creating a new 

Federal system that these entities will 

have to comply with even though many 

already work within well-established 

systems related to developing security 

standards and responding to cyber 

threats. I cannot support legislation 

that creates new and duplicative systems that will impact Missouri businesses in a negative way. While addressing the critical national security 

aspects of improving our Nation’s defenses against and ability to respond to 

cyber attacks, cybersecurity legislation must improve the regulatory 

scheme and streamline processes for 

businesses, not the opposite. 

Additionally, the carrot-and-stick 

approach that is created by the current 

bill would limit the sharing of cyber 

threat information, in a protected fashion, to those private entities which are 

participating in the voluntary cybersecurity program the bill would create. 

Those in the program would have to 

adopt specific standards and in return 

would receive relevant real-time cyber 

threat information. Those not accepting those standards and entering the 

program would not receive the protections of the program and would be limited in the cyber threat information 

they receive. Given that sharing such 

information could potentially thwart a 

cyber attack, it seems absurd that such 

information would go unshared because 

a particular entity was not a participant in the voluntary system. Such a 

provision inhibits the very type of information sharing we are trying to promote in order to enhance cyber security. In this respect, the carrot-andstick approach simply does not make 

sense. 

I also remain concerned with the 

scope of responsibility this legislation 

provides to the Department of Homeland Security. As we have found 

throughout the history of DHS, it has 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with SENATE